Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU!mcs.kent.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: cak0l@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Christopher A. Koeritz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Question on detachment
Keywords: Buddhism
Message-ID: <1990Dec2.215911.11350@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 2 Dec 90 21:59:11 GMT
References: <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Reply-To: cak0l@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Christopher A. Koeritz)
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Lines: 133
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In article <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov> pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes:
>I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has
>been gnawing at me about detachment.  I understand (to some
>extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery
>or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth)

one of the many causes of suffering is attachment to the impermanent,
since these things are bound to decay (whether this life or after it,
all compounded things break up.  even styrofoam and nuclear waste).
indeed, since in terms of atomic motion at least, things are created,
abide and are destroyed in the same moment (the waveform nature of
reality), what are we really attached to in this object?
whoops--mouth runneth away...

> and that detachment
>from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and
>cycle of birth.

some might argue that complete detachment from desire will lead
to abandoning the sacred doctrines, since there is usually a desire
to study them in those who do study them.
   however, some "desires" in the conventional sense
can never be abandoned until one has attained buddhahood, or even
afterwards.  these "desires" could include: the wish to attain
buddhahood, the desire to help other beings, and so forth.
the problem is one of language, as usual.  "desire" is a term
that applies to pretty much anything in our culture, from
hungering, to needing a nicotine fix, to wanting to watch
tv, to hankering after a lover (tricky wording, eh?),
to the altruistic intention to suffer as many lifetimes as it
takes to bring every other being to complete and perfect enlightenment.
   all of these could be termed desires, but the attachments we must
sever are to afflicted desires--desires that keep us enthralled by
the wonders of cyclic existence.  desires like: wanting to watch
tv, wanting to buy glittery plastic toys, etc.  (having experienced
these simple ones myself, i feel free to talk about them as afflicted,
although many toy- or tv-o-philes will debate it vigorously).

>  However, if I imagine myself completely detached
>emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I
>lose a quality of being alive?

yes and no.  life is a big whirling tornado that throws us from
situation to situation, and our emotions can mimic this.  to free us
from the mental vortices is an awesome promise of meditation,
and i personally feel that it only enhances the experience of
living.  most of my personal dust devils revolve around petty
conflicts with the people i live and work with (not to mention
my own ugly auto-arguments), and a distancing of the core of
my reactions from inflammatory stimulus-response patterns is
always "desired" (that word again).

>  Isn't passion an integral part of living?

(excuse any imperious statements below)
yes.  don't give it up.  just give up the aspects of it that are
injurious.  anger destroys accumulated merit.  lust pulls one
into lower transmigrations.  but when these mental phenomena
are transmuted into their non-afflictive counterparts, they
can be used to strengthen the power of the mind and increase
the intensity of one's wisdom.  don't think i'm a master of
this kind of process or anything; the best adepts are able to
perform it.  i still get furious at traffic lights, but i'm
beginning to learn how to apply compassion in those situations (for
the designer of the traffic light, who programmed it to know when
i'm coming; for the installer of the traffic light, who carried
the demonically cute little thing up onto the techno-grid over
the intersection; for the people around me who are also sitting
in their little polluto-mobiles, thinking dark thoughts about
the drivers around them and intersections in general, ad infinitum).

>Detachment makes me think of the character Spock from
>the TV series "Star Trek", something that is more of a machine
>than human.  If one is detached from feeling misery, does one
>lose touch with all feelings (good or bad)?  It seems like one
>must lose the good feelings in life to rid oneself of the bad.

Oh man, Spock's my hero.  this is the real reason for this
pseudo-educational escapade.  Spock showed feeling on numerous
episodes of Star Trek, and a distinctly subtle sense of humor.
(He's got to be a Buddhist--what else is he going to be meditating
on in those caves under Vulcan?)
But he is of course a special case, being half-human and all.
there was some controversy around on the net a while ago about
whether Spock's principles were true hollywood glitterisms, or
if they could work in practice.  well, having attempted to
practice them most of my pre-college years, i have a claim on
being an human vulcan-wanna-be.
   the results are mixed.  secondary school education is a breeze
for anyone with the faintest grip on logic, and striving to think
logically improves mental acuity.
   as far as feelings, since i am a human (and not a non-existent
green blooded, pointy eared monster), i had feelings.  my rationale
for the most part was to just bury any illogical feeling.  this of
course led to a massive mental constipation, and a dizzying level
of concretization of things (i was also a scientific-atheist during
this period).  the burying of anything irrational was not the correct
process.
   when the mental dam finally burst, i had to give up on being a
vulcan, and fine some form of self-mind-direction that worked for
humans.  one of these systems is Buddhism.  others i have noticed
good things in are Taoism, Discordia, and Gnostic Christianity.
But, concluding this massive self-explication, Spock is unfortunately
not a real human.  Leonard Nimoy is, and apparently suffered incredible
side effects from playing Spock (crying jags once or twice, and other
symptons of pentemotia).
   the process of destroying attachment, as best i know it, is to
analyze the nature of the attachments and attempt to categorize the
good and bad effects of each attachment.  strive to discard the bad
features, and one gradually purifies the mind.  this is the process
as i attempt to apply it, but not having the uncommon mode of
expression, some of the sutras will explain it to you personally
in a way that will be appropriate for your conditions.

>I know that it takes time to understand such matters, but maybe
>someone can point me in the right direction.  Thanks.
as you can tell, understanding is an interesting thing.  often the
thought that one has it is proof he doesn't.  i have
blathered a bit, and hopefully you can pick any gems out of
the main corpus of rough hewn nonsense (my nonsense, Buddha's gems).
Good Luck, hope to see you in a Highest Pure Land or nirvana
sometime real soon.  (when i get there--no boasting involved; all
beings have the capacity to become enlightened, and all will be
such oneday.  even this silly scribbler.)

May all virtues increase
and the burning of the flames of desire, hatred and ignorance be quenched.
Homage to the enlightened ones, and to you who read this.

--Chris Koeritz
Christopher Koeritz
   To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others.
               -- Shakyamuni Buddha